WikiLeaks: The Right to Know or Going Too Far?

In recent days, a website known as WikiLeaks has stirred up tremendous controversy regarding the release of thousands of government documents that were never meant for the public to see. As we prepare to discuss the right to privacy vs. the public's right to know in the days ahead, please familiarize yourself with the WikiLeaks debate and be prepared to discuss it in class.


Katie Couric gives a brief explanation of the dilemma here. And a WikiLeaks spokesman presents the organzation's point of view in this interview with CNN.

Fair Use: www.wikileaks.org

There's More to the Story

Besides the fallacies we're reviewing in class, probably the biggest fallacy that journalists can commit it to take something out of context. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of a statement in order to give undue importance or meaning to a part of it.

For example, suppose Senator John Doe says, "I think Frank Jones is not a man to trifle with." Then the anchor of a major TV network either gleefully or perhaps even unintentionally reports it as, "Sen. John Doe says his opponent Frank Jones is not a man." That is taking John Doe's words out of context. By not including the entire statement, the reporter has given the statement a completely different meaning.

John Doe's statement means that he thinks he has a formidable opponent; that is, he obviously respects his opponent as being tough. But when the statement is taken out of context, it makes it sound as though Senator Doe has insulted his opponent by questioning his manhood. Once a statement is reported out of context like this, other  broadcast, print and online organizations begin reporting the same thing and a media firestorm is soon created.

A classic example of this occurred several months ago when a government official's words were taken out of context. Both the media and the White House failed to take the time to carefully review the whole story. Please watch this video clip of the incident and read this report so that you are familiar with the case and able to discuss it here and in class.

Flickr Creative Commons photo of Shirley Sherrod by USDAgov

Bias in the News

We're going to be examining the problem of bias in the news. You're probably thinking, "I'm not prejudiced. So I would never be biased in my reporting or writing." But bias isn't the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice is a deliberate negative feeling or attitude. Bias is a tendency or an inclincation to assume a certain viewpoint, and a bias may be favorable or unfavorable and is not always deliberate. Even if your work is free of bias, you need to be a critical observer of the news media and have a greater understanding of bias in reporting. Because it happens. All the time.

Bias can occur in many ways, particularly through:

•  Selection and omission of specific details
  
•  Placement of a story
•  Choice of sources
•  Word choice and tone
•  Headlines
•  Photos and camera angles
•  Captions
•  Names and titles
•  Statistics

So we'll explore how and why bias occurs. For now, click here to examine how two articles cover the same news event in much different way.